DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on June 09, 2007, 06:37:38 PM
-
5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer
By Carol D. Leonnig
Sunday, June 10, 2007; B03
Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 30 months in prison last week for lying to federal investigators about his role in the leak of a CIA officer's identity, received 373 pages of letters about the high-profile convict whose fate he had to decide. Many argued for leniency on behalf of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, whom former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called a "dedicated public servant" and "strong family man." But some less famous writers were outraged about the example Libby set; one letter from "An Angry Citizen" demanded the longest prison term possible.
Around here, I'm the one who gets both kinds of letters. While covering this case for The Washington Post from the beginning of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation in December 2003, I've received a steady stream of mail, most of it fuming -- some because the writers think a tireless patriot is being persecuted by a runaway prosecutor, others because they think a ruthless traitor is getting off easy after jeopardizing national security.
In fact, neither caricature is fair -- let alone accurate. But even now, four years after Valerie Plame's name hit the papers, the public still has some startling misconceptions about this fascinating, thorny case.
1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
Wrong. She was.
Granted, this wasn't so clear at the start of Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, so Libby's allies argued that the beans he spilled weren't that important to begin with. In fact, many of the officials who knew about her classified CIA status kept mum, which let Libby's pals jump to assert that she wasn't an undercover operative at the time of the leak.
But a CIA "unclassified summary" of Plame's career, released in court filings before Libby's June 5 sentencing, puts this one to rest: The CIA considered her covert at the time her identity was leaked to the media. The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment. That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to reveal the identities of covert CIA officers.
When Libby was convicted, some conservative pundits complained that Fitzgerald had presented no compelling evidence at trial that Plame was covert. But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to their client.
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
2. Karl Rove would have been indicted in the Plame case if it hadn't been for all the destroyed evidence.
You'll find this conspiracy theory all over left-wing blogs. The main cause of the hyperventilating is a series of missing White House e-mails, supposedly containing marching orders from President Bush's top political adviser in which Rove told his troops to out Plame and punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph I. Wilson IV, for having poured cold water over reports that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa.
Those e-mails may contain interesting stuff, but for now, it's rank speculation to suggest that they hold information about the Plame case or would have pushed Fitzgerald to charge Rove with perjury. Fitzgerald told the court just that. He was exercising standard prosecutorial discretion when he decided not to charge Rove, according to sources close to the investigation. He didn't think he had a strong enough case to prove that Rove had intentionally lied to investigators (though some FBI agents disagreed).
3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.
Oh, brother, am I tired of this one. Libby wasn't charged with the crime of knowingly leaking classified information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he'd been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame's role at the CIA.
What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.
4. Bad press doesn't get under Cheney's skin.
The most powerful vice president in U.S. history is usually described as a tough customer who shrugs off media criticism. But if he had been that immune to (as one of his predecessors put it) "the nattering nabobs of negativism," he never would have told his top aide to talk about Joe Wilson, and none of this would have happened.
After all, did you hear Cathie Martin describe at trial what it was like to be the vice president's communications director during the spring and summer of 2003? Twice, Cheney dictated talking points for her about how to bat down Wilson's allegations that the administration had twisted the intelligence about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Cheney also ordered her to start monitoring all television reports on the Niger controversy and arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists to help get out his take on everything.
And that's not all. According to Libby's testimony, Cheney arranged to have Bush declassify passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs -- the first time Libby had ever heard of such a thing happening -- and pass them to Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter whom the administration saw as sympathetic.
5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.
When the investigation began, the president said he hated leaks and would hold leakers of classified information accountable. But he has not sacked anyone over the case.
Libby resigned the day he was indicted in October 2005. Two other officials who gave reporters information about Plame, former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, left government before Fitzgerald's inquiry concluded. And Rove, who first told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame's CIA identity, remains in the White House.
leonnigc@washpost.com
Carol D. Leonnig covers federal courts for
The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478_pf.html
-
Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime
So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths"
-
Looks like Ms. Leonning is creating myths of her own.
Neither Rove nor Libby were found guilty of leaking info about Plame, which is what he said.
So no need for Bush to sack them.
-
Neither Rove nor Libby were found guilty of leaking info about Plame, which is what he said. So no need for Bush to sack them.
BINGO. Yet the fringe left still has a near pathologic inability to grasp this concept :-\
-
Apparently the truth doesn't matter. or its OK if you are a democrat.
-
Ends (bash/degrade Bush Co every waking moment) justify the means (falsely laying claims to supposed "Libby myths", and completely misrepresenting, when not distorting what Bush made abundantly clear)
>:(
-
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
-
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
How about the investigator legally put in charge of making that determination, and IF she was determined by said investigator to have been covert, to then follow up with indicting anyone who may have leaked such information, such as the originator of the leak, who we KNOW now was Armitage
-
Even if she was covert, which i doubt since the CIA spokesman confirmed that Plame held a desk job at Langley when Novak asked, and made no effort to conceal her employment, which would be strange if she were covert, but the other prong in the fork of the law in question was did Libby Know she was covert?
I haven't seen compelling evidence toward that either. They got him for something he did during the investigation, not something he did that triggered an investigation. Thats the truth.
Does it matter?
-
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
How about the investigator legally put in charge of making that determination, and IF she was determined by said investigator to have been covert, to then follow up with indicting anyone who may have leaked such information, such as the originator of the leak, who we KNOW now was Armitage
Didn't think so
-
I'm the dumbass who comes in late to these discussions without catching up, but from my superficial understanding it appears that the scienter requirement (knowledge that Plame was covert) was the factual element lacking which prevented prosecutions on the substantive offense, and not Plame's actual lack of that status. But why go on technicalities: she actually had been a secret field operative running "agents," whose safety, through ties to her, could have been jeopardized.
-
<<Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime
<<So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths">>
You are confused.
What you refer to as an "OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald" was in fact a multi-phase proceeding, beginning with an investigation, reaching a stage of laying charges, and culminating in a trial. The only "OFFICIAL" (in the sense of final, definitive) results of the process was the trial verdict.
In the course of the investigation, Fitzgerald probably considered, and asked the grand jury to consider, whether Libby had disclosed the identity of a covert agent. The grand jury indicted Libby on charges of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury. There was no indictment on charges of revealing an agent's identity. Thus there was no official finding that Libby had revealed the identity of a covert agent and no "official" finding on whether or not Plame was covert.
So it is misleading to say that the "OFFICIAL investigation" "trumps" the unclassified summary. In fact there was no "official finding" on the issues of (a) Plame's status or (b) who, if anyone, "outed" her. What we are left with is (a) the unclassified CIA summary, which says clearly that Plame WAS covert, and (b) the grand jury's failure to indict on charges of disclosing the identify of a covert agent, which could mean a great many things, none of them officially expressed and many having no bearing whatsoever on Plame's status.
-
However the CIA itself classified Plame at the relevant times is "evidential" only, not conclusive. Resort has to be made to the statute itself, which controls.
-
I understand that, but my point was that whereas sirs considered that an "official" conclusion had trumped a single piece of evidence, there had been no official conclusion on that particular fact (Plame's status) and what we were left with was the single piece of evidence uncontradicted by any "official" conclusion.
-
<<Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime
<<So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths">>
You are confused. What you refer to as an "OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald" was in fact a multi-phase proceeding, beginning with an investigation, reaching a stage of laying charges, and culminating in a trial. The only "OFFICIAL" (in the sense of final, definitive) results of the process was the trial verdict.
AND........gotta love those ever frequent ommissions...........at NO TIME did Fitzgerald OFFICIALLY
A) Designate Plame as covert
or
B) Indict anyone for "outing a covert agent" (which is a criminal offense)
You do realize that the PRIMARY job of Fitzgerald was to determine what transpired regarding the Plame situation?? Notably to determine IF anyone ILLEGALLY devulged a KNOWN & ESTABLISHED covert agent of the CIA
One more time for Tee & Co. It's quite likely Plame was covert....at some time. Was she when Novak's piece hit paper, and more so, was she when ARMITAGE originally divulged her name, is what was pertinent. The rest of your rationalizaions are mere speculation on your part, punctuated yet again with an overwhelming lack of any evidence of proof of anything that Fitzgerald "probably considered". Unless of course your his shrink, and are currently violating HIPPA regulations. Best point your confusion mirror in its proper direction
-
<<AND........gotta love those ever frequent ommissions...........at NO TIME did Fitzgerald OFFICIALLY
<<A) Designate Plame as covert
<<or
<<B) Indict anyone for "outing a covert agent" (which is a criminal offense)>>
First of all, if Fitzgerald didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone with outing Plame, then he wouldn't have had any business making a finding on whether Plame was covert or not. The grand jury doesn't issue empty indictments aimed at nobody. They have to have a named suspect in order to indict. They can't, as far as I understand these things, indict a John Doe. IF they had a suspect, they would have indicted him or her with disclosing the identity of a covert agent, Valerie Plame. Once the indictment was issued it would have gone to trial. The trial would have dealt with the allegations, the defence of course would have been free to allege that Plame was NOT covert, and the verdict would have finally settled both issues.
The only thing definitively settled by the grand jury was that at that point in time they did not have evidence enough to base an indictment on. Period. They may not even have had a suspect, in which case it wouldn't have made any sense to even consider if Plame was or wasn't covert. So failure to indict means just that - - no evidence at the time strong enough to put a man or woman on trial AND MAYBE (but not necessarily) no evidence that Plame was covert.
-
<<You do realize that the PRIMARY job of Fitzgerald was to determine what transpired regarding the Plame situation??>>
That's not correct either. This was a criminal investigation, not a commission of inquiry.
Usually the mandate in a criminal investigation is to determine whether any crimes have been committed and to prosecute those that are found. That's how I know what Fitzgerald "probably" presented to the grand jury. It has nothing to do with being his shrink, it's just plain common sense. Unless the guy is a total moron, he must have suspected that one possible crime that might have been committed was the disclosure of the identity of a covert agent.
There's a big difference between not finding enough evidence of a crime to bring in an indictment and "officially" concluding that no crime has been committed.
P.S. considering this and my post just before it, I think I'll leave my confusion mirror pointing exactly where I had originally aimed it.
-
And yet following all this grand illusionary rationalization and Tee-leaf spin the FACT remains:
at NO TIME did Fitzgerald OFFICIALLY
A) Designate Plame as covert
or
B) Indict anyone for "outing a covert agent" (which is a criminal offense)
Unless you're now going to argue that the Investigation really isn't over. Is that the tact you're trying to facililtate? Or did the evil Bush Co manage to shut down Fitzgerald before he could really get his goose going?
-
<<Unless you're now going to argue that the Investigation really isn't over. >>
Nope. It's a simple concept to grasp, and I don't really know why you're having so much trouble with it: the investigation came to no conclusion as to Plame's status at the time of the alleged leak.
-
<<Unless you're now going to argue that the Investigation really isn't over. >>
Nope. It's a simple concept to grasp, and I don't really know why you're having so much trouble with it
Oh, due tell. So Fitzgerald is still investigating the Plame case. Strange how he seemed to have clearly presented his conclusions on the matter of the Plame investigation. We still have a Grand jury convened I assume? I haven't heard of any recent testimony being presented. Perhaps you can shed some light on it. Is it being handled down in Cheney's bunker? Just FYI, links will be much more helpful vs your say so
-
sirs, quoting MT: <<Nope. It's a simple concept to grasp, and I don't really know why you're having so much trouble with it>>
Gotta love those frequent omissions. Thanks for quoting me, but if you don't mind, I'll post what I actually said:
MT, full quote: <<Nope. It's a simple concept to grasp, and I don't really know why you're having so much trouble with it: the investigation came to no conclusion as to Plame's status at the time of the alleged leak. >>
sirs, commenting on the truncated quote: <<Oh, due tell. So Fitzgerald is still investigating the Plame case. >>
Don't know where you got that from, but obviously not from anything I ever posted. I really don't know what goes on inside that delusional brain of yours, sirs, but anytime you want to engage me on anything I actually posted, here I am. Otherwise, you're on your own.
-
[]
WAXMAN: And we begin that process today.
This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.
I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.
My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.
I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.
But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.
Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.
Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.
Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.
Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.
The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.
This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.
As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.
WAXMAN: Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.
I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point.
Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably. And we're confident she will uphold it again today.
Well, that concludes the characterizations that the CIA is permitting us to make today. But to these comments, I want to add a personal note.
For many in politics, praising the troops and those who defend our freedom is second nature. Sometimes it's done in sincerity and sometimes it's done with cynicism, but almost always we don't really know who the people are, we don't know who those people are that are out there. They are abstract heroes, whether serving in the armed services or whether they're serving in the CIA.
WAXMAN: Two weeks ago, this committee met some real heroes face- to-face when we went to visit Walter Reed. Every member was appalled at what we learned: Our treatment of the troops didn't match our rhetoric.
Thankfully, Mrs. Wilson hasn't suffered physical harm and faces much more favorable circumstances now than some of the troops, some of the soldiers, that we met last week.
But she, too, has been one of those people fighting to protect our freedom. And she, like thousands of others, was serving our country bravely and anonymously.
She didn't ask that her identity be revealed, but it was, repeatedly. And that was an inexcusable breach of the responsibilities our country owes to her. Once again, our actions did not match our rhetoric.
I want to thank Mrs. Wilson for the tremendous service she gave to our country and recognize the remarkable personal sacrifices she and countless others have made to protect our national security.
You and your colleagues perform truly heroic work. And what happened to you not only should never have happened, but we should all work to make sure it never happens again.
Thank you very much.
[]
-
Thanks, Lanya. I'm sure that sirs will just say that this is more evil liberal BS, and the evil liberal Move.On.org is not only pulling Waxman's strings, but probably General Hayden's as well. The truth of course is known to sirs and the conservative movement generally, and they KNOW this is all bullshit. Valerie Plame, BTW, does not exist. She is a liberal media construct, created for the sole purpose of taking down good conservatives like the old Scootmeister.
-
Michael, I can keep this up for years.
What I find very amusing is the parsing of words that the RIght is doing now.
I thought they didn't like hairsplitting and parsing. Boy, was I wrong! They LOVE it.
It is, in fact, right up their alley. They just don't like it when anyone outside of their group does it.
-
I know, it's hilarious. Did you see their take on "Mission Accomplished?" The "mission" was to topple Saddam Hussein and it was accomplished. THEN they had a second mission, "to build a democracy" and it's, uh, NOT accomplished.
-
:D It is entertaining watching this song & dance routine from the likes of Lanya & Tee, especially when one realizes how facts to the looney left is like kryptonite to Superman. The lies & gross distortions on "Mission Accomplished", WMD, and Plame's status is just status quo. You'd think the proclaimation made by Lanya, way back when, that once the investigation was over and its conclusions made, she'd be content with it. It's transparently apparent that in order to maintain how evil & sinister Bush must be, Plame HAS to be covert, to the likes of the looney left. So of course any and all FACTS to the contrary must minimized (parcing words), if not ignored
SOP
-
facts to the looney left is like kryptonite to Superman
Oh , i like that!
-
;) I'm glad someone did
-
Facts to the Right are like Kryptonite to stupid (TM).
-
Facts to the Right are like Kryptonite to stupid (TM).
Ummm, yea. That of course makes alot of sense ::)
-
Facts to the Right are like Kryptonite to stupid (TM).
That's from Oliver Willis, who used to be a semi decent blogger until he sold his soul to David Brock and media matters.
-
Thanks, couldn't remember who to attribute it to.
-
Facts to the Right are like Kryptonite to stupid (TM).
That's from Oliver Willis, who used to be a semi decent blogger until he sold his soul to David Brock and media matters.
I knew it was too clever to be a RW original.
-
Ummm, yea. That of course makes alot of sense ::)
Actually, it does.
Liberals are afraid of facts (it's like kryptonite to Superman).
Conservatives are not afraid of facts (it's like kryptonite to the stupid, ie, it doesn't bother them).
-
I knew it was too clever to be a RW original.
Yeah, Lanya's actually a clever right winger...
-
Ummm, yea. That of course makes alot of sense ::)
Actually, it does. Liberals are afraid of facts (it's like kryptonite to Superman). Conservatives are not afraid of facts (it's like kryptonite to the stupid, ie, it doesn't bother them).
ahhh, now it makes perfect sense. Thanks Lanya 8)